| Matter of Bramwell v New York State Div. of Hous. & CommunityRenewal |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 01276 [147 AD3d 556] |
| February 16, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of William Bramwell, Appellant, v NewYork State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent, and 1225 Park Corp.,Intervenor-Respondent. |
Katsky Korins LLP, New York (Adrienne B. Koch of counsel), for appellant.
Mark F. Palomino, New York (Sandra A. Joseph of counsel), for New York State Division ofHousing and Community Renewal, respondent.
Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for1225 Park Corp., respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.),entered December 9, 2015, denying the petition to annul a final order of respondent New YorkState Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated February 4, 2015, whichaffirmed an order of the Rent Administrator, dated July 23, 2014, that deregulated petitioner'srent stabilized apartment, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
DHCR correctly determined that petitioner's apartment continued to be subject to highrent/high income luxury decontrol after the expiration of J-51 tax benefits, because the buildingwas rent stabilized prior to the receipt of those benefits (see Rent Stabilization Law of1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-504 [c]; RPTL 489 [7] [b] [2])."[A] building that is already regulated when it receives J-51 benefits will continue to be regulatedunder the original rent-regulation scheme when the tax benefits expire . . . .[Reversion to pre-J51 status] includes the right of an owner to seek luxury deregulation inappropriate cases" (Matter of Schiffren vLawlor, 101 AD3d 456, 457 [1st Dept 2012]). Contrary to petitioner's argument, theowner was not required to serve a J-51 notice/J-51 rider to petitioner's leases to trigger reversionof his rent stabilized apartment to the original rent-regulation regime (72A Realty Assoc. v Lucas, 101 AD3d401, 402 n [1st Dept 2012]). Under Administrative Code § 26-504 (c) andRPTL 489 (7) (b) (2), a notice informing petitioner that his apartment would cease to be rentstabilized after the J-51 benefits expired would have been incorrect; those statutes provide thatsuch an apartment will remain rent stabilized after the expiration of J-51 tax benefits.
Contrary to petitioner's argument, this conclusion is consistent with the holding of Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., L.P.(13 NY3d 270 [2009]), that all apartments in a building receiving J-51 tax benefits areexempt from deregulation while the building is receiving the benefits. Upon termination of thebenefits, however, the applicable statutes expressly provide for different treatment of apartmentsthat were regulated before the receipt of J-51 tax benefits and those that became rent stabilizedsolely by virtue of J-51 tax benefits.
The owner's failure to serve an income certification form (ICF) upon petitioner and to namehim in Section I of the petition for deregulation were non-prejudicial errors that did not amountto a violation of lawful procedure (seeMatter of Klein v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 17 AD3d186 [1st Dept 2005]). Since petitioner and his wife were the only [*2]tenants of record, by serving the wife with an ICF, the ownersubstantially complied with Administrative Code § 26-504.3 and Rent StabilizationCode (9 NYCRR) § 2531.2. Petitioner himself could have completed the ICF, evenif it was addressed only to his wife (see Matter of Klein, 17 AD3d at 187). He was listedamong the tenants and occupants of the apartment in the owner's petition for deregulation, and heand his wife, who were represented by counsel, answered the petition for deregulation.
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.